V.S. Ravi, J.

1. The appellants are arrayed as A-1 to A-7 in S.C.No.68 of 1992 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 28.07.1992 has convicted the accused as follows;-

A1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 IPC. A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC. A-6 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324 and 302 r/w 149 IPC. A-3 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 302 IPC. In respect of such convictions, A-1, A-3 and A-6 have been each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 have been each sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC. A-1 and A-3 have been each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A-6 has been sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. A6 has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-7 have been each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The above appeals have already been allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court have been set aside by this Court by common order, dated 12.04.2001 and all the accused have been acquitted from all the charges. Against which the State preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos.656 of 2002 and 742 of 2003, By judgment dated 18.09.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has remitted the matter back to this Court to consider the matter afresh. The operative portion of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court reads as follows;-

"We find that the only reason indicated by the High Court to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses is that the dying declaration had been discarded. Even if that be so, without indicating any reason as to what deficiency was there in the evidence of eye witnesses, the High Court should not have discarded their evidence. Nowhere it has been recorded by the High Court that the eye witnesses's evidence was in any way deficient. That being so, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. Since the High Court has not discussed the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 independently to test whether it has credibility or not, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court to consider the matter afresh and examine whether for any reason the evidence of Pws1 and 2 need to be discarded."

3. For the sake of convenience, the case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows;-

3.1 PW-1 is the wife of the deceased in the present case and she resides at Mudukkupatti. The deceased has carried on the business as a fish vendor. PW-2 and PW-3 are the daughters of PW-1 and the deceased. PW-2 resides three houses away from the house of PW-1 along with her husband. All the accused reside at Mudukkupatti. A-2 is the brother of A-1. A-5 is the wife of A 1. A-3, A-4 and A-6 are brothers. A-7 is the friend of A-1 to A-6 and A-8.

3.2 The occurrence has taken place on 23.06.1991. One week prior to the date of occurrence, around 1.30 p.m. PW-3 went to collect water from a Public water tank. At that time, A-1 came in a cycle and teased her. PW-3 informed about this to the deceased and the deceased in turn questioned A-1.

3.3 Further, at 06.00 p.m. on 22.06.1991, A-1 has come in a cycle with a load of arrack and he has fallen down, during which time, the front wheel of the cycle has hit as against the daughter of PW-2. On seeing the same, PW-2 scolded A-1, which has followed by a wordy quarrel between PW-2 and A-1. On coming